Smoke and flames rise from railway cars that were carrying crude oil after derailing July 6 in downtown Lac Megantic, Quebec, Canada. A large swath of downtown was destroyed, and 50 people died.

When a runaway oil train exploded in a small Quebec town and killed some 50 people, the news coverage rightly focused on the awful loss of life and the carelessness that apparently caused the disaster.

In the days since, though, attention has turned to a second point: What was a train full of oil, from a field 2,000 miles away in the western U.S., doing in eastern Canada? Isn't that what pipelines are for?

Good question. The answer is that there has been a huge, but little noted, boom in the use of railroads to transport oil. The oil that devastated Lac-Megantic, Quebec, for example, came out of the Bakken field in Montana and North Dakota, where production has surged in an area with little pipeline infrastructure.

Trains go places pipelines don't, and railroads can quickly expand capacity without the regulatory obstacles that slow or block new pipelines. U.S. oil shipments by train are up almost 50 percent over last year, according to the Energy Information Administration.

In comparison with trains, pipelines move oil more efficiently and cheaply, but when they break they spill more oil. Train wrecks tend to spill less oil, but the fatality rates for train wrecks are higher than for pipeline mishaps.

This surge in oil train shipments has big implications, including the seemingly endless controversy over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring oil from huge tar sands deposits in western Canada to terminals on Texas' Gulf Coast. Keystone needs approval by the State Department, and ultimately by President Barack Obama, because it crosses the U.S. border. The process has dragged on for years; a final decision could come later this year.

Keystone deserves to be approved. It would provide a secure new source of crude for a nation that still imports about 36 percent of its oil. And if the pipeline is not built, the oil won't stay in the ground. It will find its way to other places by other means.

Environmentalists insist that blocking Keystone would limit or stop production of tar sands oil, but growing evidence suggests that won't happen. Producers can use trains, and there are proposals to expand or re-purpose two existing Canadian pipelines that would carry tar sands oil either west to Pacific Rim markets or to the east. The Bakken oil was headed for a refinery in eastern Canada.

Obama said recently that Keystone should be approved only if it did "not significantly exacerbate" so-called greenhouse gas emissions. Interestingly, an initial analysis by the State Department concluded exactly that, reasoning that if Keystone were not built, the tar sands oil would be sold anyway.

Critics have attacked the report, and their critiques have some merit. Pipeline politics in Canada are also difficult, and shipping oil by train is up to three times as expensive as pipelines. But those are details. The Lac-Megantic crash is a tragic reminder that whether it comes from U.S. fields or Canada's tar sands, oil will find a way to market one way or another. The best outcome is for that market to be here.

USA Today

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Another View: Train explosion backs case for Keystone pipeline

When a runaway oil train exploded in a small Quebec town and killed some 50 people, the news coverage rightly focused on the awful loss of life and the carelessness that apparently caused the